I think this is a great topic, or it’s a pretty good chance for me to ambush the Toddster. Seems like a win/win for me so why not? I think it’s fair and accurate to note the HuffPost is very liberal & biased. They point out the Repugs that crossed party lines to support this but skip the Dem’s that crossed those same lines to oppose. (My states Mark Pryor is one & it would have hurt his chances, will post more on this later) But for now, allow me to introduce a “gentleman” with steadfast bias. I find that refreshing in that he is honest about where and why he has this viewpoint. Make no mistake that he will present things so as to favor his side, omit things and only refer to what helps his cause. The thing that gets me is when I read this HuffPost article, I automatically think of it as being a news report. I have to re-look and search for what’s left out or misleading.

Standing Guard

By Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President

Not Enforcing Existing Gun Laws—That’s A Crime

If anybody in Chicago is culpable for the armed carnage on that city’s mean streets, it’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who never misses an opportunity to blame peaceable, law-abiding gun owners for the daily bloodletting by violent Chicago thugs.

Emanuel steadfastly refuses to demand application of tough federal laws that would surgically rid the streets of criminals who currently terrorize many Chicago neighborhoods. And that represents a kind of aggressive political malfeasance.

For Emanuel—a former U.S. congressman, former chief of staff in President Barack Obama’s White House and former Bill Clinton White House gun-ban guru—to intentionally blow off federal laws punishing illegally armed violent criminals is especially vile.

The reason is simple. If Chicago citizens knew the extent of existing harsh criminal sanctions and that those laws could readily be applied to prosecute real criminals, Emanuel’s endless call for new “gun control” would be seen for what it is: an evil campaign to disarm the innocent. And those federal laws apply equally in every corner of the nation.

Comments

That reality goes for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and for every other mayor signed on to his phony national political machine, Mayors Against Illegal Guns. It also goes for U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama.

A January 2013 Chicago Tribune story headlined, “U.S. struggles over which gun crimes to prosecute,” reported, “Obama’s Justice Department has shown little appetite to prosecute what it considers low-level firearms crimes… officials with the department said.”

If “low-level” prosecutions of the most violent armed criminals in Chicago were the norm, that city—with thousands of shootings and armed robberies added to its growing number of murders—would see scores of the worst violent gang members and armed drug dealers sent to prison in sure, swift prosecutions. That’s true for every city in America.

But Chicago, with the most vicious armed criminals in the nation, ranks 89th out of 90 U.S. Attorney districts. That ranking comes from Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), which provides the gold-standard review of federal law enforcement performance.

Given thousands of violent crimes involving armed criminals, including record numbers of murders every year, Chicago has seen pathetically few federal gun-law prosecutions: 63 in fiscal year 2011.

How many of the 506 murders involving firearms in Chicago last year would never have happened had Obama’s Justice Department taken criminals off the streets?

A simple look at the law answers that question. Everything real violent criminals do to acquire a firearm is already a serious federal felony. Under federal law, lying to a licensed dealer, lying on the form 4473, and straw sales are all federal felonies that are almost never prosecuted. Holder’s Justice Department calls them “paper violations.” Yet those are the very crimes that they say demand a “universal background check”—a national registration scheme—for all of us.

So let me cite—from a federal public defender fact sheet—a few of the existing federal statutes dealing with armed criminals once they have their guns. I’ll give you the prison term first along with the citations in the United States Code (U.S.C.).

• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)—for possession of a firearm or ammunition by a felon, fugitive, or drug user… And possession means touching a gun, any gun, handgun, rifle or shotgun. Any firearm that Dianne Feinstein would ban for us, is already an illegal gun for violent criminals.

• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(j)—for possession of a stolen firearm.

• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 922(i)—for shipment or transport of a stolen firearm across state lines.

• 10 years—18 U.S.C. § 924(b)—for shipping, transporting or receipt of a firearm across state lines with intent to commit a felony.

• 5 to 30 years consecutive mandatory minimum sentences—18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A)—for carrying, using, or possessing a firearm in connection with a federal crime of violence or drug trafficking.

• The death penalty or up to life imprisonment—18 U.S.C. § 924(j)—for committing murder while possessing a firearm in connection with a crime of violence or drug trafficking.

• 15 years mandatory minimum—18 U.S.C. § 924(e)—for a “prohibited person” who has three prior convictions for drug offenses or violent felonies.

So, if every possible aspect of acquisition, possession, transport, transfer of a firearm by criminals demands harsh and swift punishment under existing law, what is it that Emanuel, Bloomberg and President Obama really want?

To criminalize—then prosecute—everything that we do as law-abiding, peaceable citizens who own and use firearms.

I want to ask a favor. Copy this column and give it to people in the media and to politicians. Put them on notice that their ignorance of law, feigned or real, and their unwillingness to push for prosecution of real criminals using existing federal law cannot be tolerated—EVER! Otherwise these agenda-driven politicians are complicit in criminal violence.

I’m not surprised either. A couple things of note. We already have background checks (Sand Hook had nothing to do with these) Conservatives don’t like Obama. I don’t either, so I would not help him either.

Why do we need “NEW” laws? Is a new law going to somehow keep guns from criminals? Are criminals and maniacs going to suddenly abide by this new law? If you want to really understand irrational thought, spend some time on Capital Hill. Your current view is nothing more than opinion, which isn’t very accurate in terms of reality.

Reply

d13thecolonel says:

May 2, 2013 at 9:38 am• Edit

Another Huffpo report…worse than Fox News.

Reply

d13thecolonel says:

May 2, 2013 at 9:41 am• Edit

And why duplicate a law…we have background checks…..just simply expand them to gun shows….the Repubs are against a national registration which this bill would have set up. I am against a national data base…read the bill AND its add one.

Reply

d13thecolonel says:

May 2, 2013 at 9:42 am• Edit

Sorry….add ons….meaning the companion bill attached to it from Feinstein.

Reply

Todd says:

May 2, 2013 at 5:50 pm• Edit

No Colonel,

You’re wrong again. Show me the link to the bill and it’s “add on”.

Reply

Todd says:

May 2, 2013 at 5:48 pm• Edit

This proves nothing except your inability or unwillingness to do a little searching of your own.

“This proves nothing except your inability or unwillingness to do a little searching of your own.”
I’m not sure it’s that simple. Kinda like being friends with a couple that’s fighting, he said, she said, both usually have a “side”. Are we trying to pick a side or find the truth? You won’t find truth by avoiding it:
G said “We already have background checks (Sand Hook had nothing to do with these)”

None of the proposed measures would have prevented the Sandy Hook killings. Obama has had several photo ops with some of the parents and thus used this to promote his agenda. So why is there no reporting what he’s using to push his agenda has no bearing on the laws proposed? He’s doing a hard sell on “Preventing another Sandy Hook”, but the laws, if passed, would have no impact on another such crime….

As for the registration(he said, she said) you would have to be a lawyer to give an informed opinion. And then, you would most likely be wrong. Consider that the IRS now will look at a service you are required to buy and then determine if you get a deduction or will pay extra. Many of the required insurance reports that doctors are REQUIRED to fill out have questions on gun ownership. A big part of this was/is a national database. They are not trying to make “A” national database, they ARE building a dozen to then cross-check…

PS, as written, it costs you $200 to register a firearm. Along with never let a crisis go to waste, never screw the people in only one opening….take their rights and charge them for it at the same time…..reminds me of a movie, where the black actor looks tearfully at the camera and says “master, he been real good to me”.

I would require states to issue photo voter id cards at no expense to the voter. WIth todays technology this would be easy to do and not that expensive. Of course a voter could use any other state issued photo ID card in place of the voter ID card, so everyone with a drivers license would not need one and reduce the cost to the state.

A photo ID would give proof that you are who you say you are and that you live where you say you live. Easy peesy lemon squeezy.

No. If this were the case, we could all just declare our ideas “good enough” and there wouldn’t be much to discuss.

I have worked with ID card creating tech and I can tell you that it has become very cheap to produce ID cards. It is a very user friendly system that requires very little training to use.

I’ll address this as an example. Creating the Id’s is the easy part of the technology. You need a system collect the data to create them, keep track of who has them, when they move, when they die, and how to “cancel” them in these cases.

Since these Id’s would be “similar” to driver’s licenses, you could possibly add to those systems. But that would take research to determine how to do that.

But you ignore all these questions (literally – you didn’t respond to most of my questions) and just declare your solution “good enough” and “common sense”. You obviously don’t want to put forth the effort to create a real solution.

Since you have yet to put forth a detailed plan of your own I am not going to waste my time on something that will not make a real difference.

“If so, I have a few “generalizations that are good enough” I’ll be posting soon”

All you comments Todd are generalizations so your “threat” is hollow… 🙂

“My point is these are details you have to work out”, if we were actually writing legislation I would be more than happy to provide details, but we are not so I am limiting the amount of time I occupy my thoughts on your trivial nit picking of general ideas.

Not necessarily you my friend. It is a generalized compliant that we cannot do anything anymore in this country because it is too hard. Be it protecting the border or locking up the bad guys, it is just too hard. There are too many of them, it is too expensive etc., etc.

I’m reminded of JFK in my youth in talking of why we were going to the moon. “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy but because they are hard.” Boy, what the hell ever happened to that? Everything became insoluble.

FLP, I agree that a picture ID should be required to vote. But this is a State issue, not the Feds (which is a good thing, look what the Fed’s did to health insurance).

I’m not sure what the Left’s issue is with the ID thing. ID’s are required to buy liquor and beer, tobacco, guns, to drive a car or truck, to get a bank account, to get a loan of any kind, to sign up for welfare in most states, to get healthcare at most hospitals (in non-emergencies, but then after), and the list goes on and on.

There are some simple solutions to the problem with the ID issue. The States can make it a law to have a picture ID to do the following (if it doesn’t exist as of today), sign up for medicai, welfare benefits (all of them), Govt housing, and any other govt funding assistance. Churches can ask for ID to hand out food (I can explain this one later if you want). Do all of this and the poor will have the ID’s to vote and the Liberals will stop their never ending crying over the matter. 🙂

I hope today find you and yours to be healthy, happy and feeling wonderful about life 🙂

Yes, but don’t you know that if you oppose any of these measures to make it easier to stuff the ballot box, you’re a dirty racist and loony conspiracist?

Denver Post:

The Colorado Senate passed a bill Thursday that would provide a ballot by mail to every state voter, allow vote centers for those who choose not to use the mail ballot and — controversially — allow people to register and vote on Election Day.

The bill passed 20-15 with the full support of Democrats and no Republican votes. The bill passed the House on a party-line vote last month.

They point out the Repugs that crossed party lines to support this but skip the Dem’s that crossed those same lines to oppose.

I guess you missed the point of the article – why many Repugs voted against the bill. And they gave credit to the three Repugs who crossed party lines to support the bill.

How is that very liberal & biased?

Well, I guess that honesty does reflect being very liberal…

But for now, allow me to introduce a “gentleman” with steadfast bias. I find that refreshing in that he is honest about where and why he has this viewpoint. Make no mistake that he will present things so as to favor his side, omit things and only refer to what helps his cause.

So the Huff Post is very liberal & biased because they omitted the Dems who voted against the bill (which had nothing to do with the story), but you find refreshing someone from the far-right who will present things so as to favor his side, omit things and only refer to what helps his cause?

A little hypocritical?

I have to re-look and search for what’s left out or misleading.

Maybe you should add “THINK” to your “To Do List”.

I’m not sure how this is an ambush of me. It seems you’re just pointing out the problems you have with English comprehension.

This is just another example…of something I can’t mention…because it will hurt your feelings…

And from the journalism classes I took years back, I will say a balanced article would list both parties who crossed lines or not mention it at all. Only listing the Repugs is taking a side in the report. You would never know four Democrats voted against this.

Yes, you explained. I simply do not agree with your reasoning. Sen. Toomey expressed his view on why Repug’s voted, but it was left out that four Dem’s also voted against. And I would say they had their own reasons for their votes. Did Toomey get all Repugs to answer a multiple choice questionnaire? Did those four Dem’s also decide to not help Obama?

I also see a difference that the NRA is a 2nd Amendment advocate, so they announce their “bias” or stance on the front. We can assume LaPierre is conservative, but don’t know. They are single issue and refuse to weigh in on climate change, abortion, etc.. HuffPuff presents their information as if it is unbiased and truthful. I see “facts” presented that are questionable. Funny thing, I don’t always agree with the NRA, but I have yet to catch them state a falsehood. Check the above listed “facts” on criminal sentencing and their stance on enforcement.

The Dept. of Justice did a study a few years back that found there were 750,000 instances of defensive gun use in the USA. By my math, that’s 2054.79 a day, so thousands a day is pretty accurate. It is a shame about the little girl, mother said she didn’t know the gun was loaded. The NRA has the leading gun safety program in the country, called Eddie Eagle.

Todd, I object strongly to the implication that most/all people on the right are islamophobes. Same goes for racist, sexist, and homophobe tags. A–H—‘s come in all persuasions. In fact the broad brush you are using is no different than the denigration you decry.

If the guy assaulted the cab driver then he is guilty of assault and should be prosecuted. As for hate crimes, this is just more PC crap that has been forced on the citizenry. A crime is a crime, makes no difference what was going on in your mind at the time.

Following the Boston Marathon bombing earlier this month, frequent Fox News guest Erik Rush called for all Muslims to be killed. Three days later, a man assaulted a Muslim woman in Boston and screamed, “Fuck you Muslims! You are terrorists!”

Todd, First, the guy in the cab is not given any political affiliation. Actually, Northern Va is very Liberal, maybe he was a typical Lefty who gets off sexually be degrading people in public. That seems to a favorite hobby for Leftist’s.

Kell’y argument about being offeded is correct if read in context and the crowd he was speaking to. But as usual, Leftist’s can only read what they want and misrepresent the facts so they can degrade people in public, like the guy in the cab 🙂

How did you come to that conclusion? Are you in denial that the terror events listed are fueled by radical Islam? Why is it that we can not call a Muslim a terrorist, if in fact he is a terrorist and Muslim?

I’m with TRay here, and the Colonel, whose words you used without giving him credit. Your broad brush excludes those of us here who do call out jerks like Erik Rush. What’s that word that Matt used to throw at me all the time..oh yeah..ANOMALY. What gets me is that you, Todd, and others in your camp, can’t do two things at one time…denounce terrorism AND admit that the terrorists are Muslim. So go ahead and throw the Aurora movie guy, or Jared Loughner, at me. While I would still consider them terrorists, they didn’t bring their religion into it. These Russian guys are Muslim terrorists, killing infidels in the name of Allah. Are all Muslims terrorists? No. But when they yell Allahu Akbar before you hear a BOOM, then we have every right to call them Muslim terrorists. What label would you give to the Boston bombers, the Fort Hood shooter, or any of these other 100+ .MUSLIM acts of terror? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks#2000.E2.80.932009

Don’t forget the whole ‘jihad’ angle. Loughner & Co had nothing to do with jihad.So when you string a few things together..Terror, Jihad, Muslim it certainly makes sense to refer to them as Muslim terrorists. If all the bombers had been CHRISTIAN, we’d never hear the end of it, and you know it.

Sometimes I feel we have already lost the rearguard defense of our liberties. CA passed a gun confiscation law that for now targets felons and the mentally ill. But these definitions are ever expanding. As my dad always said, everyone is crazy but you and I and I am not so sure about you. CA is also working on an ammo tax and ammo registration, i.e, backdoor gun registration.
ObamaCare included rules for banks to report virtually all transactions to the IRS. The Stimulus bill created the national healthcare database which will contain all of your medical records.

CA has a database of all prescription drug purchases, which they can scan for doctor shopping of narcotics. Makes HIPA meaningless.

Most drug stores, auto parts, grocery stores now have preferred customer cards which are used to create a database on your individual purchasing habits.

Google, Facebook and other internet services can and do create a database of your interests based upon websites visited.

The IRS is legendary for tracking down cheats and attaching their bank accounts, wages, etc., all without due process.

And yet, as we see in Boston, INS can’t stop or find foreign students who drop out of school, leave the country and then re-enter claiming to be full time students. We can’t stop Medicare fraud, EBT fraud, welfare fraud…. We can not prosecute criminals who violate the federal gun laws as noted above. We can not stop illegal immigrants at the border or deport them when caught elsewhere. We can not purge dead and moved individuals off voter roles but I can find all my deceased relatives in the SS database on Ancestry.com in seconds. You need a background check and ID to buy a gun but your word is golden to vote. Both are Constitutional rights.

The only thing that gives me any hope is the shear incompetence of the federal government. But that incompetence seams to be selective.

Nor does it help that the Obama administration seems willfully averse to naming the real enemy. For if they were not trying their best to avoid the obvious and play “Let’s Pretend,” why term the war with jihadists an “overseas contingency operation?” Why label the jihadist attack by Major Nidal Hasan at Fort Hood in 2009 “workplace violence?” And why purge the FBI Training Manual of any reference to Islamic jihadists? Nor is it just the administration; its media lackeys play the game as well.

Why the name game? Why intentionally deprive yourself of the good sense to name the enemy we’re actually fighting? Three possibilities come to mind: one is that radical Islamic elements have infiltrated the federal government and have shaped the thinking of the administration so as to protect them and do their business for them. Another is that the administration is so fearful of provoking a non-existent backlash against Muslims that they will do almost anything to avoid fingering them. A third possibility is that Obama wants Americans to think that since he has personally killed Bin Laden, the War on Terror is over. This last is consistent with his willful refusal to label the attack on the Benghazi embassy an act of terror. Nevertheless, however true any of these options may be, none of them is a useful strategy for dealing with an Islamic enemy that anyone with their brain engaged knows full well is the country’s dominant terrorist threat.

None of the proposed measures would have prevented the Sandy Hook killings.

That is correct. But you have to start somewhere. Keeping guns out of the hands of some criminals would help. Funding law enforcement, and allowing a permanent director of ATF to be appointed would also help, so they can enforce the current laws (something many of you point out here).

Research on injury prevention can help too:

Injury prevention research can have real and lasting effects. Over the last 20 years, the number of Americans dying in motor vehicle crashes has decreased by 31 percent. Deaths from fires and drowning have been reduced even more, by 38 percent and 52 percent, respectively. This progress was achieved without banning automobiles, swimming pools, or matches. Instead, it came from translating research findings into effective interventions. Given the chance, could researchers achieve similar progress with firearm violence? It will not be possible to find out unless Congress rescinds its moratorium on firearm injury prevention research (enacted in 1996).

Todd, laws do not keep guns from criminals, Sandy Hook is an example, those guns were STOLEN, which also happens to be a crime, after the killer KILLED the person he stold the guns from (his mother), which is also a CRIME.

So please explain how LAWS are going to keep guns from criminals again?

What would be wrong with local volunteers, who have an interest in protecting their community, who have the training, …spending a few hours a week at local schools with a gun handy? …like a couple of veterans or former police to each volunteer 15 or 20 hours a week.

There are liability issues with everything. What if you don’t have enough cops? Also, is one cop enough?

One person can travel 300 yards faster than a police car can travel a few miles. I would even argue in favor of Anita’s point that it isn’t more cops that are needed, but rather a more efficient distribution of them. Take them off of traffic or desk duty, or use the narcotics unit.

The point is how to guard the children without stealing more from the citizens.

Would parents chipping in to pay a security guard be any different than hiring more cops and raising theft? It would at least be voluntary. Are the children not worth it?

The most inexpensive and efficient means would be to accept responsibility for your community instead of asking government.

There was an armed police officer at Columbine. He was assigned there because his shooting skills were poor. He did try to stop them, but was driven away by the explosives. And I agree, too much territory for one person. One is better than none, especially if the rove and are not predictible.

Charlie, why do those on the left think that taxes are always the answer despite the fact that they are never the answer? Many Pa school districts already solved the problem, without costing anybody anything. They took down the idiot “no gun zone” signs and allowed any employee with a conceal carry license to carry at work, this included teachers, admin, janitors ect. Why is it so hard to use common sense anymore? 🙄

I have no problem with having a process to deal with those that are not well protected. The problem I have is the left wing ideas like “no gun zones” and such suck! They invite disaster, not protect against it. If you feel that I’m wrong here, please check out every major cities criminal rates that have been under left wing control forever, then talk to me about your process!

My basic bitch is that I am told by nice people that I have to compromise over and over and over again. When I do, the other side never does what it says it will do. Hence, no prosecutions for felons/fugitives and no border fence.

The NYC crackdown initiated by Bratton and Guilliani proved that large volumes of crime are committed by a small number of repeat offenders. When through “quality of life” crimes (turnstile jumping for example) these guys had their paroles/probation revoked, the number of gross crimes went way down. Now, how many lives would have been saved if they prosecuted more than 45 of the 48,000 who were stopped by the NICS check from purchasing firearms in 2010? Every day, I hear the number of border jumpers has increased. How many would have been stopped by the fence that was promised, promised and then promised again but never built?

I hear over and over that there is not the manpower to pursue these issues. Let us say for the sake of argument that a date is posted (tomorrow). Starting tomorrow, all firearms violators will be prosecuted, all border jumpers will be stopped and all illegals found in the country will be ejected. Mind you, I am not saying anything is done retroactively unless you accidentally trip over them., Just new cases. What would prevent this from working? Surely the “new” numbers would be workable wouldn’t they? Wanna try to get somebody to sign onto this. Never happen! They are more interested in their world view which includes me compromising away things that they do not like or things that they just “know” are not good for me.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg accused his city’s largest paper, The New York Times, of racial bias Tuesday for not reporting on the murder of 17-year-old Alphonza Bryant.

“There was not even a mention of his murder in our paper of record, The New York Times,” Bloomberg said on Tuesday. “‘All the news that’s fit to print’ did not include the murder of 17-year-old Alphonza Bryant. Do you think that if a white, 17-year-old prep student from Manhattan had been murdered, the Times would have ignored it? Me neither. I believe that the life of every 17-year-old and every child and every adult is precious.”

But in its Thursday edition, the Times published a story about the 10-day-old murder, mentioning Bloomberg’s remarks.

“Mr. Bryant’s life and death came into the public spotlight on Tuesday when Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg singled him out as a casualty of gun violence, using the teenager to illustrate the toll that illegal guns can have on New York, and the value of the Police Department’s stop-and-frisk tactics,” reporters Winnie Hu and Nate Schweber wrote. “Mr. Bloomberg criticized civil rights groups, saying they expressed no outrage about Mr. Bryant’s shooting, and suggested that The New York Times had failed to cover the killing because the teenager was black.”

The Times’ editorial board’s has voiced its disapproval of the city’s stop-and-frisk policy and actively covers crime, Times spokeswoman Danielle Rhoades Ha wrote in an email to Dylan Byers of Politico.

“Mayor Bloomberg is trying to deflect criticism of the City’s stop-and-frisk practice by accusing The New York Times of bias. Among those critical of the practice is The New York Times editorial board, which is separate from the news side of the newspaper. The Times aggressively covers violence in the city’s neighborhoods, and to select one murder as evidence to the contrary is disingenuous. His claim of racial bias is absurd.”

” None of the proposed measures would have prevented the Sandy Hook killings.

That is correct. But you have to start somewhere.”

So why parade the Sandy Hook families around and use them to sell a law that has no bearing on “preventing another Sandy Hook”? If we need to start somewhere, why not start where most of the gun violence and killings take place?

“Under federal law, lying to a licensed dealer, lying on the form 4473, and straw sales are all federal felonies that are almost never prosecuted. Holder’s Justice Department calls them “paper violations.””

Why not use existing laws and target the gangs in Chicago? Why do they minimize the laws impact instead of maximize it for gang members? Why does it appear Holder/Obama do not care how many blacks die in Chicago?

“And they don’t have the man-power to go after all of them…”
(Then what is the point in passing more laws when they lack the manpower to enforce the existing ones? And why would you buy that argument? If they are arrested and charged, but the DofJ treats what could be a major offense as “paper violations”, how much effort and labor could it take to charge them? We keep hearing we should act “if it would save just one life”. Here it is, they have the laws and they are refusing to use them to keep violent criminals off the street.)

Why does it appear Holder/Obama do not care how many blacks die in Chicago?

This is just another example of how you like to inflame an issue – kinda like “pick a side or find the truth? You won’t find truth” by throwing out rhetoric…

Maybe so, but it won’t be found by ignoring the problem either. Urban violence is where the majority of the deaths are and it is being mostly ignored. And it can be addressed. Instead, we see they deliberately avoiding enforcing existing laws…

Attempting to capitalize on the Newtown, CT, school shooting, Barack Obama introduced a “common sense” gun violence program to the nation, and to Congress. This would include such things as a renewal of the assault weapons ban, limits on magazine sizes, and expanded background checks.

If these proposals were really as “common sense” as the administration says, wouldn’t you think that at least those who proposed them would think they’d work? And yet, Joe Biden was caught on tape by CNN saying the following:

“Nothing we are going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring … gun deaths down to a thousand a year from what it is now.”

So how can these proposals be “common sense” to the rest of us when they’re not even common sense to the man who was put in charge or selling them to Congress and the nation? Now, given, we are talking about Joe Biden again, so…
Here is some common sense: if the American people hope to remain free from government tyranny, they must resist every “common sense” gun control proposal that comes from this or any other administration.

And here’s why: progressives never stop, and they’re never satisfied. One of their most powerful tools is “incrementalism.” When progressives want to take power over something, they rarely do it all at once. Instead, they take small, “common sense” steps. They assure us that each step will be the last, even as they begin to plan their next step.

You can see it in tax increases. If you remember, in January Obama and the Republicans in Congress finally averted the fiscal cliff with a bill that made permanent many of the Bush-era tax cuts while raising taxes on those making over $400,000 per year. Many Republicans gave a sigh of relief, believing that they had kept tax increases to a minimum. But by the time the sequester rolled around a couple of months later, Obama was already pushing for more tax cuts. Incrementalism.

I saw this recently in my home state of Colorado. In addition to writing for the CFP and teaching, I work as a private investigator. Colorado is one of a number of states that does not require private investigators to be licensed. For several years, those who want more government control over the private sector have pushed for licensing in the state, but have been unsuccessful, largely due to Republicans in state government.

So last year they offered a compromise: how about we make licensing voluntary? Then those who would like the prestige of a license can have one, and those who don’t want to jump through yet more government hoops and waste their money don’t have to. They convinced enough Republicans in the state legislature to agree, and the bill became law.

It’s one year later now, and guess what those same progressives are moving through the legislature: mandatory licensing.

Once they got their foot in the door, they immediately pushed for more. That is how these people work. Incrementalism.

It’s the same with gun control. Piers Morgan, during his desperate attempt to increase ratings during the gun control debates, said, in so many words, “Why not give up just the assault rifles, since they do so much damage? Keep your handguns and shotguns; nobody wants those!” Biden said the same, going so far as to suggest that instead of owning an assault rifle, “[if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.”

But anybody with real common sense knows that once the assault rifles were gone, next it would be, “Just give up your handguns, since they do so much damage. Keep your shotguns; nobody wants those!” If you have common sense, you know what would follow.

So we must remain vigilant: GIVE NO GROUND. It’s like a tug-of-war. It can be painful to keep pulling on that rope all the time, but if we let go even for an instant, the other side will take up the slack and move the rope to the left. Once we realize what has happened and we stop the movement, there has been a fundamental shift that is difficult if not impossible to reverse.

Actually, it is an absolut monarchy that keeps the peace by providing a whole lot of free stuff to its citizens. Don’t think it really is comparable to anything else. Non Saudis’ have no status in the country. That is similar to Japnm’s treatment of ethnic Koreans who have been there for a century.

Feinstein wants to ban guns because they kill. Will Feinstein also say “ban Muslims because they kill”? If those who support gun control can’t do that same with Muslims the FU&$ Them. They are nothing but hypocrits anyway :LOL:

No, no, no, now it is climate change. So anything out of the ordinary (what’s ordinary about weather anyway?) is caused by pollution mankind makes. Cooling is actually a result of global warming. Saw that in the movie,

Wait now. It’s not Global warming, because that wasn’t working, so they kept changing the name and it ended up Climate Change! Really! Well, we have 4 (yes, that is 4 for the liberals who can’t count that high) seasons here. Different weather with all 4 too! Imagine that! Al Gore should be hanged as well, from anywhere that is very high!

“When the President does it, that means that it’s not illegal.” ~ Richard M. Nixon

2. “We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease.” ~ President George W. Bush

3. “The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them.” ~ Rush Limbaugh

4.”My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better.” ~ South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, arguing against government food assistance for poor residents.

5.”The ACLU is to Christians what the American Nazi party is to Jews.” ~ Jerry Falwell

11.”Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.” ~ Rep. Michelle Bachmann

12.”The greatest threat to America is not necessarily a recession or even another terrorist attack. The greatest threat to America is a liberal media bias.” ~ Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)

13.”He is purple – the gay-pride color, and his antenna is shaped like a triangle – the gay pride symbol.” ~ Jerry Falwell’s warning to parents that “Tinky Winky,” a character on Teletubbies, may be gay

15.”The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.” ~ Pat Robertson

16.”Ground Zero Mosque supporters: doesn’t it stab you in the heart, as it does ours throughout the heartland? Peaceful Muslims, pls refudiate.” ~ Sarah Palin

17.”‘Refudiate,’ ‘misunderestimate,’ ‘wee-wee’d up.’ English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!'” ~ Sarah Palin

18.”Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant — they’re quite clear — that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the Ten Commandments.” ~ Sarah Palin

19.”What I don’t know is what the unexpected might be.” ~ John McCain

20.”We have a lot of work to do. It’s a very hard struggle, particularly given the situation on the Iraq-Pakistan border.” ~ John McCain (the countries share no common border)

22.”If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president.” ~ Ann Coulter

23.”I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out under another, then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter. I’m not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it’s an interesting coincidence.” ~ Rep. Michele Bachmann

24.”We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.” ~ Ann Coulter

25.”I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.” ~ George W. Bush

26.”Do you have blacks, too?” ~ George W. Bush

27.”We need to execute people like (John Walker Lindh) in order to physically intimidate liberals.” ~ Ann Coulter

28.”When I see a 9/11 victim family on television, or whatever, I’m just like, ‘Oh shut up’ I’m so sick of them because they’re always complaining.” ~ Glenn Beck

29.”I’ll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office.” ~ George W. Bush

30. “Well, I learned a lot….I went down to (Latin America) to find out from them and (learn) their views. You’d be surprised. They’re all individual countries” ~ Ronald Reagan

31.”I even accept for the sake of argument that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged.” ~ Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

32.”Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?” ~ George W. Bush

36.”If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.” ~ George W. Bush

37.”I am not worried about the deficit. It is big enough to take care of itself.” ~ Ronald Reagan

38.”Grown men should not be having sex with prostitutes unless they are married to them.” ~ Jerry Falwell

39.”It may be a blessing in disguise. … Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. Haitians were originally under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the third, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you will get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it’s a deal. Ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other.” ~ Pat Robertson

40.”AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.” ~Jerry Falwell

41.”Facts are stupid things.” ~ Ronald Reagan

42.”Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” ~ George W. Bush

43.”There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on –shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.” ~ George W. Bush

44.”Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country.” ~ George W. Bush

47.”I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started.” ~ Donald Rumsfeld

48.”She wears little eye-patch underwear. So, the other day she came here with her underwear, Thursday. And so, we had made love Wednesday–a lot! And so she’ll, she’s all, ‘I am going up and down the stairs, and you’re dripping out of me!’ So messy!” ~ State Rep. Mike Duvall (R-Calif.) on a live mic referring to an affair with a lobbyist

49.”I am here to make an announcement that this Thursday, ticket counters and airplanes will fly out of Ronald Reagan Airport.” ~ George W. Bush

as a response to the stuff that is posted here about “stupid liberals.” There are probably a dozen in every post – sometimes more (do I need to point them out in this post?). When we on the “left” point them out, it’s suggested we just ignore them – which we do for the most part. But it gets old – and not responding to them gives the impression that they’re true, or there’s no way to refute them.

So I posted this and implied that it’s just conservatives that cause this kind of stuff. And a bunch of you just had to refute it. So now you know how it feels to read these kinds of posts.

And remember, it’s 6-8 from the right (sometimes more), vs 1-2 from the left – no matter who posts the ‘crap’.

If you want to stop this kind of stuff, and return to more “reasonable” discussions, stop it from the right, because that’s where it starts.

Todd, You have to admit that politicians, both sides, say really dumb stuff all the time. I thought Charlie’s list was funny, because it was true. Maybe those who vote could do a better job at picking smarter candidates 😉

I will post and make reference to liberals or view from the left. I’m pretty sure I don’t throw in stupid or idiot. I also call Republicans Repugs, African Americans black. At least with my posts, don’t feel special, I’m equally offensive to nearly everyone….

Re-posting this because I think SK nailed it again. He has told us of his past working in NY. This is a guy that has been there and done that! We talk about urban violence & gangs & here is a viewpoint from those streets…..

Stephen K. Trynosky says:

May 3, 2013 at 9:00 am• Edit

I cannot find the original link so here is another. Despite the paper being from the SAMI folks, the quote sources are legit. Have a NY Times article somewhere from few years ago backing this up.

My basic bitch is that I am told by nice people that I have to compromise over and over and over again. When I do, the other side never does what it says it will do. Hence, no prosecutions for felons/fugitives and no border fence.

The NYC crackdown initiated by Bratton and Guilliani proved that large volumes of crime are committed by a small number of repeat offenders. When through “quality of life” crimes (turnstile jumping for example) these guys had their paroles/probation revoked, the number of gross crimes went way down. Now, how many lives would have been saved if they prosecuted more than 45 of the 48,000 who were stopped by the NICS check from purchasing firearms in 2010? Every day, I hear the number of border jumpers has increased. How many would have been stopped by the fence that was promised, promised and then promised again but never built?

I hear over and over that there is not the manpower to pursue these issues. Let us say for the sake of argument that a date is posted (tomorrow). Starting tomorrow, all firearms violators will be prosecuted, all border jumpers will be stopped and all illegals found in the country will be ejected. Mind you, I am not saying anything is done retroactively unless you accidentally trip over them., Just new cases. What would prevent this from working? Surely the “new” numbers would be workable wouldn’t they? Wanna try to get somebody to sign onto this. Never happen! They are more interested in their world view which includes me compromising away things that they do not like or things that they just “know” are not good for me.

I happen to agree with SK as well. I’m not compromising away any more of my rights, period. The 2nd Amendment is not up for debate, so the next time someone says we need to talk about it, talk to the hand!

On a better note, it’s Saturday, the sun is shining and it’s going to be another nice day 🙂 So, putting politics aside, I hope everyone has a great day and enjoys the weekend. 🙂

But as he posted, we know what works and our governments are doing the opposite. They are keeping violent gang members on the streets and then using that resulting crime to call for more funding and more laws….

Supposed to get more rain today, may hit the mall & bookstore with the family. 4H shooting tomorow.

I would agree. Enforce those laws on the books and then let’s see how things go. My only recommendation would be to eliminate the anchor baby program immediately. Obama claims “we” try to separate families in our immigration policies? No more coming to US to drop their baby and have it automatically become a citizen. There, fixed it for you, pres!

“Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) revealed that some members of his party opposed expanding background checks for gun sales recently because they didn’t want to “be seen helping the president.””

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) revealed…
Revealed is an interesting word. “Some members of his party”, which and how many? One or a dozen? Kinda vague on details except expanding background checks failed simply because the Repugs refuse to be seen helping Obama…..And by extension, they would rather see another mass shooting than work with the President….

Speaking for myself and other NRA members, let me state clearly we do not want anyone to be shot. We simply disagree on the best way to address the issue of bad people with guns.
I think this is closer to the reason the background checks failed. There were details in the bill that would/could lead to a national registration system.

I have met Ark’s Sen. Mark Pryor, a Democrat. It does not surprise me he voted against the bill. He has a favorable rating from the NRA. He also seems to be a nice guy. I disagree with him on most issues, but for the most part, think he acts as he see’s is best for the country. He is for the “death tax”. Is it any wonder family farms are becoming a thing of the past? History, not herritage. But on the gun issue, I think he either voted his beliefs, or he felt supporting it would cost him re-election. And I have to wonder, if Sen. Toomey had oppsed it, would that have harmed his campaign?

Maybe we should praise the Toomey & Pryor’s both, who broke ranks from their parties! We elected them to represent us, not either political party!

“By the way, it is interesting to note how Josef Mengele made his living during the 34 years he was hiding from justice. He was an abortionist.”

Like Kermit Gosnell, Josef Mengele Was an Abortionist on Trial

by Mark Crutcher | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 5/4/13 12:32 PM

During the Nazi holocaust, Josef Mengele used concentration camp prisoners, including young children, as test subjects for a catalog of demented medical experiments. Documents uncovered by Allied forces revealed that, before they were killed, Mengele’s victims were subjected to pain on a scale that can only be described as unimaginable.

After the war, Mengele became known as the “The Angel of Death” and international prosecutors wanted to put him on trial. But he had fled Germany and could not be found. Then, in 1985, a body was exhumed from a South American grave that DNA evidence confirmed to be his. After eluding capture for 34 years, Josef Mengele had died at the age of 68 having never been tried for his crimes. But in a Philadelphia courtroom, we are being given a glimpse of what Mengele’s trial might have looked like. It is the criminal prosecution of abortionist, Kermit Gosnell.

At this point, the State has presented its case, the defense has rested without calling any witnesses and we await the verdict.

What we heard from testimony given by sworn witnesses is that this pro-choice hero has a long history of performing “safe and legal pregnancy terminations” after which the babies are still alive outside their mothers’ bodies. He then completes the procedure “ex-utero” by making small slits in the back of the babies’ necks and cutting their spinal columns in half. Courtroom testimony was that Gosnell had performed such decapitations hundreds of times over the years with one clinic employee testifying that, she alone, saw him dispatch more than 30 living children in this way.

We also learned that the caseload became more than Gosnell could handle by himself, so he recruited an unlicensed medical school graduate named Steven Massof to lend a hand. At trial, Massof could not say with any certainty just how many baby spines he had snipped, but he estimated that it was somewhere around a hundred. He went on to say that sometimes, “It would rain fetuses. Fetuses and blood all over the place.”

When investigators searched the abortion clinic, they found bodies of dead babies in paper bags, plastic bottles, milk jugs, orange juice cartons and cat food containers. Some were stored in refrigerators and one freezer contained the corpse of a 28-week-old baby boy frozen in a one-gallon water bottle. It was also apparent that some of these bodies had been there for years.

Most of the prosecution witnesses were former employees and one testified that Gosnell collected the feet of his victims in glass jars and authorities found about 50 such containers scattered around the abortion clinic.

One testified that fetal remains were sometimes left out overnight. She stated that, “You knew about it the next day when you opened the door … because you could smell it as soon as you opened the door.”

In other testimony, a former clinic worker said Gosnell put a baby in a plastic shoebox for disposal and the witness said she noticed that it was still breathing and moving around. She testified that the child jumped while she was snipping its neck.

One witness said that another baby was also put in a shoebox but was too big to fit. The baby pulled his arms and legs into the box and Gosnell snipped his neck.

Another former employee said that she saw multiple babies killed after being born alive and that, in one case, the child was making a screeching noise like “a little alien.”

One witness testified about a baby they killed that was 12-18 inches long and that Gosnell joked about one of them being big enough to walk him home. Another testified that Gosnell also joked about a baby that was writhing as he cut its neck saying, “that’s what you call a chicken with its head cut off.”

In other sworn testimony, a clinic worker said that one woman’s baby fell out of her while she was on the clinic toilet and that the baby was alive. She said that the child “looked like it was swimming” and that another employee “reached into the toilet, got the baby out and cut its neck.”

Inspectors said that the facility was filthy and foul smelling. They said that the floors and walls were splattered with urine and that some of the furniture was covered in dried blood. They also found dirty surgical instruments as well as plastic disposable speculums and curettes being reused from woman to woman.

One witness testified that, following their abortions, women were left naked from the waist down and that the clinic provided no robes, only blankets that were washed once a week.

Another witness stated that women often sat in bloodstained lounge chairs in the “recovery room” while unlicensed, unsupervised workers gave them large doses of various drugs because Gosnell wanted them to be quiet.

A janitor at the clinic told jurors that he had threatened to quit because he did not like pulling flesh from aborted babies out of the plumbing. He said that the clinic’s toilets backed up one-two times a week and that, whenever he opened the clean-out pipes, fetal parts such as babies’ arms came spilling out.

The catalog of health and safety violations was overwhelming. There can be little doubt that they played a role in the fact that several patients contracted STDs while at the clinic and at least two women died.

Another witness testified that Gosnell would sometimes take sexually suggestive photos of patients using a digital camera or his cellphone.

There were also charges of racism. Despite the fact that Gosnell is black, former employees testified that white women were routinely taken to clean well-kept rooms with televisions where Gosnell treated them personally. Meanwhile, minority women were sent to the clinic’s dirtiest rooms to be seen by medically unqualified staff. One witness said that when she asked Gosnell about this, his response was that this is just the way the world is.

The list goes on and on and is certainly too long for this article. For those who are interested in the complete story, the full grand jury report is available online.

The answer to why these atrocities would occur is not hard to find. First, while the pro-life movement claims that abortion takes the life of a living human being, nobody on earth knows that better than the people who work at abortion clinics. The lofty rhetoric of “choice” may insulate those who work in the political and public relations arena, but the day-to-day reality for those who provide those “choices” is to deal with the corpses and parts of corpses they pull out of their customers’ bodies. It is an environment that inevitably destroys the humanity of those who choose to live in it. In fact, look up the definition of “psychopath” and you will see a textbook description of the kind of person who is mentally capable of performing abortions.

Second, the nature of abortion is no different than the nature of pornography and prostitution. All three are sleazy and corrupt businesses that only attract sleazy and corrupt operators. Moreover, that does not change whether they are legal or illegal. In recent years, even abortion defenders have begun grudgingly admitting that one of their biggest failures has been their inability to “mainstream” abortion within the legitimate medical community. They may not like acknowledging it, but these industry insiders have come to see that, like pornography and prostitution, the stigma of abortion is permanently hard-wired into the act itself.

CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!

In the final analysis, these are the two reasons why we have seen these abortion clinic horror stories in the past and why we will see more of them in the future. Simply put, it is the nature of the beast.

During Gosnell’s trial, it became clear that organizations like Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Federation, and others within the pro-choice community, were fully aware of what he was doing. But they kept quiet because this was a rock they did not want the public looking under. What they knew, and wanted to keep hidden, was that everything being done at this abortion clinic was within the standard operating procedures for every other abortion clinic in the country. So they, and their lapdogs in the media, started whistling past the graveyard.

Now it’s in the hands of the jury and, given the testimony and evidence piled up against Gosnell, it seems incomprehensible that this monster could escape conviction. But, I’m not so sure. After all, the judge has already dismissed some of the charges against him on the basis that the state failed to prove that the babies were born alive. In short, the judge’s opinion was that these tortured and mangled children were simply the product of everyday, run-of-the-mill, late-term abortions. In addition, Gosnell’s defense team has routinely argued that very point when trying to counter the testimony of prosecution witnesses. To paraphrase their position: these babies were taken to this abortion clinic to be killed and they were killed … so what’s the problem?

As a long-time anti-abortion activist, I have to say that the judge and defense team locked-in on the core issue of this trial. What they are saying is that, if Gosnell decapitated these babies while they were still inside their mothers’ abdomens – rather than a few feet away on a stainless steel table – then nothing illegal occurred. To put it another way, the mere fact that these children were butchered is irrelevant as long as they were butchered in the appropriate location. The tragedy is, under existing abortion law that is a viable position. It also defines the abyss of moral bankruptcy that our legal system – and our nation as a whole – fell into on the day that Roe vs. Wade was handed down.

Today, legalized abortion is like a chicken bone that’s stuck in the throat of the American people. The abortion lobby will never be able to make them swallow it, and the pro-life movement will never let them just ignore it. And every once in a while, something comes along to remind them of those two realities.

At this moment in history, that “something” is the Gosnell trial. It is forcing the intellectually honest members of our society to ask themselves why they can be so horrified by what this guy did to these babies outside the womb, but so accepting of the fact that the same things are done to babies inside the womb every day in abortion clinics all over the country. Either the American people are legitimately blind to the hypocrisy and irrationality of that, or they have made a conscious decision to look the other way. If it is the latter, they have no right to be outraged when the Kermit Gosnells of this world come along and rub their noses in it.

In the coming days, we will learn the outcome of this trial. But whether Gosnell is tossed onto death row, set free, or something in between, the far bigger picture is what this trial says about our country. The late Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, once stated that America would be judged on how it treats those at the dawn of life, those in the twilight of life and those in the shadows of life. If he was right, then the ultimate verdict of this trial will not be rendered by the 12 men and women who made up the jury. Instead, it will be revealed in the way the public responds to what they’ve been shown. Make no mistake; regardless of anything that happened or didn’t happen in that courtroom, the real defendant was the American people.

By the way, it is interesting to note how Josef Mengele made his living during the 34 years he was hiding from justice. He was an abortionist.

Take Kathy’s post above, aka; confessions of a leftist and now add this comment on the Gossnel story:

“This was an incredibly horrible situation and when it came to light, he was somehow associated with the abortion community, which he’s not,” said Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute, a research group which supports abortion rights. “It’s taking a long time for that message to get out. He does not represent abortion care in this country.”

He is NOT represent the abortion CARE in this country??? He is NOT associated with the “ABORTION COMMUNITY”???

Good freakin grief.

If this kind of thinking becomes truly mainstream then V, I will have to re-consider my stance on your “slippery slope” proposition.

I would agree most people are revolted-I would say that most people were against abortion when it was introduced back in 1973-I would say if the regular people knew even half of the sick stuff that’s been going on the last 40 years they would have been horrified-but yet even without the majority agreeing-it has and is still happening, makes it pretty clear that when it comes to policy, to implementation, it is the organized organizations that make the decisions-not the regular people. And they push the limits daily. And the regular people thanks to the media don’t even know what’s going on.

It’s kinda like the argument I’ve heard many times on here about freedom-if you open that door an inch someone is going to keep pushing it open further and further. Abortion is the same-gave an inch-look at what it has birthed. Yeah, maybe the majority can stop it-maybe. But it looks doubtful on both fronts.

Does that equate every doctor who performs an abortion wiht a Mengele? Is that your silly point? The fact he was the Nazi Joseph Mengele equated him with evil … not because he performed abortions (with the assumption that women went to him for abortions–not what he did in Nazi Germany).

Can you people reach any further? How about he saved the lives of people you disagree with politically — then he must be even extra evil!

Since you seem stuck on reveling in political quotes you find obnoxious, let me give you one.

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

“I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to elevate every man – to depress none. (Applause.) I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going. I have not said anything about politics today. I don’t propose to say anything about politics. You have a right to elect whom you please; vote for the man you think best, and I think, when that is done, you and I are freemen. Do as you consider right and honest in electing men for office. I did not come here to make you a long speech, although invited to do so by you. I am not much of a speaker, and my business prevented me from preparing myself. I came to meet you as friends, and welcome you to the white people. I want you to come nearer to us. When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment. Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I’ll come to your relief.”

Nathan Bedford Forrest (July 13, 1821 – October 29, 1877) was a lieutenant general in the Confederate Army during the American Civil War. He is remembered both as a self-educated, innovative cavalry leader during the war and as a leading southern advocate in the postwar years. He served as the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, a white supremacist organization.

Yeah that’s the first sentence in Wiki. Did you scan the “talk” section for that article?

That he was the original Grand Wizard of the KKK has long been rumored, but never proven. It would have suited the purposes of both the KKK and the Occupation Army to have people believe Forrest was involved. Forrest himself denied the stories. And in terms of actual proof, we have scant evidence either way.

Check out the ‘talk’ section.There is more discussion about it. I have no opinion either way whether it’s true or not. But since you jumped TRay so fast I figured I’d throw this out there.

It might behoove you to follow the link I posted and read the article. Also note that the quote posted was before the fore runner of the NCAAP. The article posted also notes that the Klan was formed to fight the northern white carpet baggers of reconstruciton. It later, after Forrest died, morphed into the supremiscist form that we now know.

The quote comes from one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates which occurred in IL in 1858. The objective of the debates was to elect a favorable state senate that would then select the senator from IL. The major topic of the debates was expansion of slavery into the new territories. One has to view the comments from the perspective of the times and the circumstances. Lincoln would have no chance of election if he espoused full equality. As it was he lost the election. In a subsequent debate, on the subject of equality as defined by the Declaration of Independence, he stated:

[the authors] “intended to include all men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral development or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider all men created equal — equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness … They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all: constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even, though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, every where”

During his presidency, Lincoln did get to know Frederick Douglass quite well. His views on the subject did evolve as noted in the Gettysburg Address and in his support of the 13th amendment.

But for now, allow me to introduce a “gentleman” with steadfast bias. I find that refreshing in that he is honest about where and why he has this viewpoint. Make no mistake that he will present things so as to favor his side, omit things and only refer to what helps his cause.

You “see a difference that the NRA is a 2nd Amendment advocate, so they announce their “bias” or stance on the front.” Ok – that’s fine.

You say “they are single issue and refuse to weigh in on climate change, abortion, etc.” But this is entirely irrelevant. We’re talking about the 2nd amendment. Whether they comment on other issues doesn’t matter.

What does matter is “he will present things so as to favor his side, omit things and only refer to what helps his cause.”

That is the DEFINITION of propaganda:

Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed towards influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.

the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause

And you find this refreshing.

I think that explains just about everything about you.

You’re Ok with spreading propaganda that helps you.

You assume – falsely – that anything that disagrees with your preconceived ideas is also propaganda. But it’s not. It’s actually the truth. But you can’t and don’t want to see that.

For you, there’s only one “truth” – the one presented by the NRA, PrisonPlanet, AmericanThinker, and whatever else you read that supports your preconceived view.

Wow, you make a lot of assumptions about how someone else thinks-Perhaps I shouldn’t speak for LOI-but I think his point is that it is refreshing when someone just admits they are biased-instead of denying they are biased when it is obvious they are. This doesn’t mean one believes in spreading propaganda.

You really seem to be making a big deal out of a fairly tame comment. Even if you think he’s wrong in relation to the example he used. The statement it’s self really doesn’t require such a personal condemnation of the man. Obviously, there has been a lot of this going on lately but you don’t have to contribute to the insanity. 🙂

As far as “truth” -you seem pretty good, at assuming you can differentiate between truth and propaganda, but somehow LOI is blinded by his preconceived ideas. But you are not. Actually, I’m curious what exactly are preconceived ideas? I know the definition but in reality what does that statement really mean. I don’t have any ideas that haven’t come from my experiences. I don’t base them on nothing-they aren’t something I just decided I wanted to believe.

One person says they find it refreshing when a group ADMITS to what their goals are and that they will do anything to achieve them vs. those who claim to be righteous while lying and manipulation everyone. So you accuse them of supporting the tactic.

I didn’t see a support of the tactic. What I saw was acknowledgment of the honest of the NRA regarding their position and tactics.

How is it not objective to recognize that? Just as it is objective to recognize the groups who are lying without admitting it.

Now as for my comment to V.H., it was tied to her analysis of the word pre-conceived and how it is used, and how it in fact is a condemnation of using your experience to make judgments.

Judging based on information is a hallmark of objective thought, by the way. Of course one needs to make sure the information is good and truth based.

VH says: “Wow, you make a lot of assumptions about how someone else thinks”

(about abortion) JAC says: It equates those who do it for a living or as a regular service as having the same mental makeup. When one becomes numb to the horror of what they do then yes, the distance between them and Mengele becomes short.

Apparently you can’t recognize the difference. The comment about those who are numb to violence is based on documented psychological studies. It is evidenced in reports by doctors who used to perform abortions regularly and stopped because of its affect on their psyche.

So my comment is not one of pre-conceived notions.

This means I was either correct in my analysis of what the comparison was meant to convey, or I was wrong and the intent was a simply an effort to equate all doctors who perform an abortion with Mengele.

VH,
We all have bias. The question is to you seek information only to confirm your bias, or do seek information to expand your knowledge and question your bias? I see the former happening here more and more.

If Charlie or I had made this statement, there would be no end to the up roar. But it’s “no big deal” when someone from the right makes it.

pre•con•ceive – To form (an opinion, for example) before possessing full or adequate knowledge or experience.

To me, preconceived means applying your bias to something before you even try to find general facts.

I have a little different perspective of what I have seen happening here at SUFA. People started posting articles to promote conversation because USW went away and there were very few articles written for discussion. But most of these articles weren’t discussed-so people started searching for more and more articles in the hope of finding something we all wanted to talk about. This was done in the hope of keeping SUFA going and it takes a lot of time to read and find articles, not to mention actually writing an article, but these people mainly LOI and Gman were not thanked by all for doing this-people would pick some article they posted and attack them personally. They didn’t attack the content of the article they attacked the person, personally attacked the person who posted the article. An article that was posted for general discussion-which means they are willing to discuss the viewpoints in the article. Not that they are willing to be personally attacked. Now I know that other people have also been personally attacked and I think most on here don’t like it-but it seems to just keep happening. Perhaps we should all just agree to talk about the article-not the person posting it. It’s fine to disagree but it is not okay to personally attack each other. I also know it is very hard not to offend each other in just general discussions about what the Dems. or the Reps. are doing or saying out there in the world but we are capable of not Intentionally attacking each other. And most of what I’m seeing is intentional.

Great point: “To me, preconceived means applying your bias to something before you even try to find general facts.”

i.e., assuming you know what it’s like to grow up in poverty after hundreds of years of discrimination; applying your moral standards against those you have NOTHING in common with (except to point to the discrimination of your forefathers, who were not slaves, etc.) …

You see, now your argument amounts to “nobody can discuss poverty who never was poor” even though YOUR polices will affect my life based on YOUR decisions to help the poor.

If you want to apply that standard then apply it across the board. NO elected or hired Govt official who was NOT raised in poverty will EVER be allowed to offer a bill or regulation dealing with poverty.

Nobody who didn’t live during the period of slavery or Jim Crow will be allowed to form judgments on slavery, discrimination, racism, etc, etc.

Todd, you must realize that the whole Left/Right paradigm is nothing but propoganda. There is very little, if any, truth coming from either side in the District of Clowns.

Per your comments to V.H. about bias. I look at my beliefs all the time and I am willing to change my mind on anything given a logical reason. A good example is my feelings towards our Fed Govt, while I used to have faith in them, that has changed because they do not warrant any faith, they are corrupt to the core. The elections are fixed, pick your poison, Left or Right, things will just stay the same.

Now if you can convince me that one or more of my beliefs are wrong, I will glagly change them. Good Luck 🙂

As you with Todd, after all, this is your topic. Lead us where you think we should go in the discussion.

“Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed towards influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument.”
Reminds me of Piers Morgan when he shouts down his “guest”, refusing to allow violent crime to be talked about when comparing the US to the UK…Win’s his argument, fewer guns does result in less gun violence. Fails in the rate of violence goes up when you limit peoples ability for self defense.

With our two parties controling ouy system, it seems we are always picking on side or the other. Not the NRA! They are absolute in who gets their support and why. Frustrates me to no end that they would not oppose Harry Reid, but he is a consistant gun rights supporter.
Got to admit, he did some fancy dancing on this go round! Forced by his party & President to have a vote on something he didn’t want to touch.

He consistently demonstrates a pattern of blurring the lines and putting his opponent on the defense by attacking credibility.

You start out stating that 2+2=4, and end up debating whether or not you’re a qualified animal psychologist who can determine whether or not Bigfoot is a racist that knows how to iron clothes aboard an airplane veering off course into enemy skies during a future war involving technology that doesn’t yet exist …or something.

Any debate with Todd will digress into oblivion. It’s literally pointless. It is as if his whole debate strategy is to obstruct a steady train of thought, to prevent a logical conclusion.

There are times he seems to get off track on minutia or attacks an analogy instead of the issue proper, but he is not the only one to do that. I might have even done it myself from time to time. 🙂

On the other hand, he does a good job of pointing out when opinion is being presented as facts or when our bias is clouding our judgment. Like most of us, though, he has a hard time seeing his own. Or at least doesn’t want to discuss that side of the coin.

He he-Personally I think the reason Todd’s name gets bought up a lot when it comes to sarcasm or insults taken to the extreme -is because Todd is exceptionally good at it-None of those old reliables like your an idiot for Todd 🙂

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — The Texas House approved a batch of bills Saturday to further soften gun laws that were already among the country’s most firearms-friendly, allowing college students to carry handguns in class, putting potentially armed marshals in public schools and exempting the state from any future federal bans on assault rifles, high-capacity magazines or universal background checks.

The 12 approved gun bills must all clear final, procedural votes before heading to the state Senate. Still, they advanced with only minimal delay, cruising past Democrat-led efforts to block or stall them. Nearly all were approved by simple voice votes.

In the case of carrying college campus, The measure would allow colleges and universities to opt out of the new rules annually — which has softened opposition to it among some top higher education leaders. Current law already allows universities to opt in, and the Texas A&M University System is among those that have done so. The University of Texas System will enact allowing CCH permit holders to carry on college campus’ this July. Not to be outdone, TCU, SMU, Texas Tech, and the University of Houston are all expected to follow suit this year.

The most controversial bill that has been passed to the full senate is a bill that attracted national attention when it was introduced by first-term, tea party Republican Rep. Steve Toth of The Woodlands. It would nullify within state borders any federal laws banning assault weapons or high-capacity magazines, or expansion of background checks for firearms owners, even though doing so would almost certainly violate the U.S. Constitution, an ” in your face” issue to the Feds…..don’t mess with Texas.

Conroe Republican Rep. Brandon Creighton, and several co-authors, sponsored a bill to punish by up to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine to police officers or government officials who try to enforce federal firearms limits in Texas.

Also passing was the school marshal measure, sponsored by Dallas Republican Rep. Jason Villalba. The marshals would be employees who already hold concealed weapons permits and are chosen by their public school district or charter schools to receive firearms training.

Another measure that was approved was one by Democratic Rep. Ryan Guillen of Rio Grande City that’s meant to prohibit agencies from posting “no carry” signs in cases where carrying a gun isn’t illegal and imposing fines for violators. A bill by fellow Democrat Sergio Munoz of Palmview to expand school districts’ ability to alert hunters of the location of campuses also passed.

@ JAC……..you gotta top this one.

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — The Texas House approved a batch of bills Saturday to further soften gun laws that were already among the country’s most firearms-friendly, allowing college students to carry handguns in class, putting potentially armed marshals in public schools and exempting the state from any future federal bans on assault rifles, high-capacity magazines or universal background checks.

The 12 approved gun bills must all clear final, procedural votes before heading to the state Senate. Still, they advanced with only minimal delay, cruising past Democrat-led efforts to block or stall them. Nearly all were approved by simple voice votes.

In the case of carrying college campus, The measure would allow colleges and universities to opt out of the new rules annually — which has softened opposition to it among some top higher education leaders. Current law already allows universities to opt in, and the Texas A&M University System is among those that have done so. The University of Texas System will enact allowing CCH permit holders to carry on college campus’ this July. Not to be outdone, TCU, SMU, Texas Tech, and the University of Houston are all expected to follow suit this year.

The most controversial bill that has been passed to the full senate is a bill that attracted national attention when it was introduced by first-term, tea party Republican Rep. Steve Toth of The Woodlands. It would nullify within state borders any federal laws banning assault weapons or high-capacity magazines, or expansion of background checks for firearms owners, even though doing so would almost certainly violate the U.S. Constitution, an ” in your face” issue to the Feds…..don’t mess with Texas.

Conroe Republican Rep. Brandon Creighton, and several co-authors, sponsored a bill to punish by up to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine to police officers or government officials who try to enforce federal firearms limits in Texas.

Also passing was the school marshal measure, sponsored by Dallas Republican Rep. Jason Villalba. The marshals would be employees who already hold concealed weapons permits and are chosen by their public school district or charter schools to receive firearms training.

Another measure that was approved was one by Democratic Rep. Ryan Guillen of Rio Grande City that’s meant to prohibit agencies from posting “no carry” signs in cases where carrying a gun isn’t illegal and imposing fines for violators. A bill by fellow Democrat Sergio Munoz of Palmview to expand school districts’ ability to alert hunters of the location of campuses also passed.

Top this?? Once again you Texicans are late to the game. The Idaho House passed a similar measure back in March. The Senate killed it, however, because they didn’t want to waste money prosecuting local LEO’s over something they couldn’t enforce.

The attempt to arm school officials looks like it failed as well, but you should note that Idaho has been putting “armed police” in the schools for almost 20 years.

Idaho #2 in NRA rating and almost last by Brady Bunch. But ranks below Illinois and 24 other states in gun violence.

As any of us who are “responsible” gun owners know, it is all about TRAINING baby, Notice the 10,000 latest applicants to “hunter safety courses”.

The data is seriously skewed and applies to back ground checks. Gun shows etc….do not have back ground checks…..but…interesting graph. For example, I have only one registered weapon and that ia a Walther PPK .380 which pertains to my CHL….however, our CHL allows either revolver or auto…..if you have auto on your license, you can carry anything but only on weapon is registered. I have six handguns. Most Texans that I know own a minimum of three weapons..I have 18…. Not to mention I am up to 7,000 rounds of ammo now….and climbing…..so, when necessary, you and I can combine our stores and make some noise.

I may get in trouble for violating the rules of the net, but couldn’t help just bringing this whole article here. It relates to the topic but not as much as Marcus’s latest comments about the Media attacking him further. But for now, a little confirmation bias for ya’l. 🙂

Lloyd Marcus Update from the road of Tea Party Express III

A Black Man, The Progressive’s Perfect Trojan Horse

As millions of my fellow Americans, I am outraged, devastated and extremely angry by the democrat’s unbelievable arrogance and disdain for We The People. Despite our screaming “no” from the rooftops, they forced Obamacare down our throats. Please forgive me for using the following crude saying, but it is very appropriate to describe what has happened. “Don’t urinate on me and tell me it’s raining.” Democrats say their mission is to give all Americans health care. The democrats are lying. Signing Obamacare into law against our will and the Constitution is tyranny and step one of their hideous goal of having as many Americans as possible dependent on government, thus controlling our lives and fulfilling Obama’s promise to fundamentally transform America.

I keep asking myself. How did our government move so far from the normal procedures of getting things done? Could a white president have so successfully pulled off shredding the Constitution to further his agenda? I think not.

Ironically, proving America is completely the opposite of the evil racist country they relentlessly accuse her of being, progressives used America’s goodness, guilt and sense of fair play against her. In their quest to destroy America as we know it, progressives borrowed a brilliant scheme from Greek mythology. They offered America a modern day Trojan Horse, a beautifully crafted golden shiny new black man as a presidential candidate. Democrat Joe Biden lorded Obama as the first clean and articulate African American candidate. Democrat Harry Reid said Obama only uses a black dialect when he wants.

White America relished the opportunity to vote for a black man naively believing they would never suffer the pain of being called racist again. Black Americans viewed casting their vote for Obama as the ultimate Affirmative Action for America’s sins of the past.

Then there were the entitlement loser voters who said, “I’m votin’ for the black dude who promises to take from those rich SOBs and give to me”.

Just as the deceived Trojans dragged the beautifully crafted Trojan Horse into Troy as a symbol of their victory, deceived Americans embraced the progressive’s young, handsome, articulate and so called moderate black presidential candidate as a symbol of their liberation from accusation of being a racist nation. Also like the Trojan Horse, Obama was filled with the enemy hiding inside.

Sunday, March 21, 2010, a secret door opened in Obama, the shiny golden black man. A raging army of democrats charged out. Without mercy, they began their vicious bloody slaughter of every value, freedom and institution we Americans hold dear; launching the end of America as we know it.

Wielding swords of votes reeking with the putrid odor of back door deals, the democrats
landed a severe death blow to America and individual rights by passing Obamacare.

The mainstream liberal media has been relentlessly badgering the Tea Party movement with accusations of racism. Because I am a black tea party patriot, I am bombarded with interviewers asking me the same veiled question.“Why are you siding with these white racists against America’s first African American president?” I defend my fellow patriots who are white stating, “These patriots do not give a hoot about Obama’s skin color. They simply love their country and oppose his radical agenda. Obama’s race is not an issue”.

Recently, I have come to believe that perhaps I am wrong about Obama’s race not being an issue. In reality, Obama’s presidency has everything to do with racism, but not from the Tea Party movement. Progressives and Obama have exploited his race from the rookie senator’s virtually unchallenged presidential campaign to his unprecedented bullying of America into Obamacare. Obama’s race trumped all normal media scrutiny of him as a presidential candidate and most recently even the Constitution of the United States. Obamacare forces all Americans to purchase health care which is clearly unconstitutional.

No white president could get away with boldly and arrogantly thwarting the will of the American people and ignoring laws. President Clinton tried universal health care. Bush tried social security reform. The American people said “no” to both president’s proposals and it was the end of it. So how can Obama get away with giving the American people the finger? The answer. He is black.

The mainstream liberal media ontinues to portray all who oppose Obama in any way as racist. Despite a list of failed policies, overreaches into the private sector, violations of the Constitution and planned destructive legislation too numerous to mention in this article, many Americans are still fearful of criticizing our first black president. Incredible.

My fellow Americans, you must not continue to allow yourselves to be “played” and intimidated by Obama’s race or the historical context of his presidency. If we are to save America, the greatest nation on the planet, Obama’s progressive agenda must be stopped.

Todd has stumbled upon a way to make our lives much more efficient. From now on we only need one person debates. Gone are the debates between tow or more people. The Debater will present both sides of the argument simultaneously. Just imagine how efficient the past presidential debates would have been with Obama speaking out of both sides of his mouth simultaneously.

“Just imagine how efficient the past presidential debates would have been with Obama speaking out of both sides of his mouth simultaneously.”

He did, only YOU and some others here didn’t acknowledge what he did AFTER he spoke (like ignore the unions paying into his re-election, giving banks whatever the fuck they wanted, giving Monsanto what it wanted, etc.) … the difference between him and Romney was a matter of semantics … Romney was very clear about how he felt about 47% of the people, Obama made believe he gave a fuck about them. Vote GREEN, baby … vote GREEN.

JAC, Charlie needs a break, he’s old and quickly losing it. We just can’t keep picking on the old like this. But don’t worry, he will soon be in a nursing home and talking to nurses and such real soon. Give him a break Sir 🙂

Oh, say can you see by the dawn’s early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
‘Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

I am in a hotel room in Boston. My team, Conservative Campaign Committee, is here filming a TV ad to help conservative candidate Michael Sullivan in Massachusetts.

I just returned from dinner. Checking my email and listening to a recap of the Rush Limbaugh radio show, I find myself fighting a deep sadness for my country. At every turn, it appears the Left is winning the battle for our culture, moving toward the end of America as we know it.

Far too many Christian churches have lost their salt and simply go along to get along, all in the name of love. Desperate and fearful after losing the election, too many Republicans are willing to sacrifice core values and principles in hope of winning votes.

Cultural and moral decline are running rampant. Where is the push back? Some say forget the culture and focus on economic issues only. The economy and the culture are linked.

My heart is heavy, but what can I do? Do I give up? God forbid.

The reality is the efforts of my team and all who love America are needed more than ever. Rather than allowing hopelessness to triumph, my resolve is strengthened to fight with every fiber of my being to restore my country by putting conservatives in office and saying no “loudly” to every vile left wing attack on our culture.

Refering to pregnant mothers, she said: “There’s nothing there until there’s love.”
TFP volunteer: “If it’s not murder, then what is it?”
Pro-abortion woman: “It’s like you’re weeding your garden.”
TFP: “Really? Do you kill the weeds?”
“You have to love. There’s not life until there’s love.” ”

You asked, ” Colonel, seriously, where are you on these two wars? Did you support them originally, do you still do so? Do you see defense spending as completely out of control or do you believe we need to stay ahead of the game and continue spending? Serious canoli captains want to know …

D13 responded, ” @ Charlie (and any alter ego that may be out there…lol)

The two wars that you mentioned are Iraq and Afghanistan, correct? Did I support them at that time. No sir, I did not. Did I go….yes sir I did as that was my duty according to the oath that I took as a United States Army Officer. ( We do not have the luxury of being anarchists)

Was there a reason to go into Iraq on WMD? (Remember, WMD were not only nuclear but chemical as well).We know that they were there at one time. Is that a reason to attack Iraq? No, unless there was an immediate threat and there was none. There was only ONE viable reason to attack and that would have been punitive for violations of the no fly zone that was part of the cease fire brokered in Gulf War One. I would have supported the invasion on those precepts.

As to Afghanistan……I took a combat brigade there and we did not belong there. But again…. we are the muscle for civilian authority. I am a proponent of reducing and/or eliminating all military bases in foreign countries except Korea and Okinawa. I am a proponent of a very strong military. I want to be the biggest kid on the block and I want to be the baddest MFer in the world.

I would support eliminating all discretionary spending accounts across the board and limiting the Defense Budget to 5% of GDP. The figures show that elimination of discretionary spending accounts, closure of the bases in Europe, eliminating the UN contribution in total, dissolving NATO and let Europe stand on its own, eliminating all bases in the Middle East….continuing the presence in Korea and Okinawa (necessary for checking the expansion of Chinese military and losing the South Pacific strategic position)….adding all this up and the reduction of expense in the Defense budget would reduce the percentage to GDP to 3.8% and that would allow us to maintain the strongest military, develop new military technology, and provide for the defense of the USA and its interests.

Crap…..proof reading after the fact is no good……please remove Okinawa and replace it with Taiwan.

Fair enough, Colonel. My only confusion is this: “No sir, I did not. Did I go….yes sir I did as that was my duty according to the oath that I took as a United States Army Officer. ( We do not have the luxury of being anarchists)”

I take issue with oaths in general (mostly because they are usually made in a good light (if you will) … when some form of patriotism overrides future situations that cannot be foreseen. For instance, the Mob has an oath (which has been proven a joke over time) … fraternities have them … the boy scouts, etc. … I guess what I don’t understand is the loyalty to an oath overriding conscience; if you don’t agree with a war, why participate? I’m not querstioning your character at all … just curious. I didn’t joint a fraternity (but was a boyscout at age 11), and I don’t join political parties, writing associations, etc., because I don’t like being part of a group mentality. That’s me … and only over time. I’m just curious as to why you’d feel that level of loyalty (to the men, I understand), but to a government you mostly don’t agree with (the politicians who put you and your men into harms way for whatever reason). You might’ve answered this once before (I’m thinking I might’ve asked this once).